At the end Laurie gets shot to death by the police after she goes crazy, like Michael did, the final shot is off her in a white hallway sitting on a bed. Her mother/Grim Reaper thing shows up, she smiles. The end. In reality, she's dead and that's her final thought, but it's way to easy to think that she was placed in an asylum.
The ending to the director's cut was quite different. In fact, the whole tone of the film changes somewhat. Probably for the better. Laurie is either more annoying or more pitiable...or maybe both.
On the other hand, Wayne Toth's makeup effects in the theatrical finale were kind of ace. Particularly the Dr. Loomis dummy that looks all hacked away.
Okay, I'm rewatching Laid to Rest(not a brilliant film) and it occurs to me that there's pretty much no way the killer Chromeskull can return. I mean, not a one. He rips his own face off...on accident. And yet he's coming back later this year with only scars to show for it. And the creators said they aren't going nutty.
Do any sequels follow a point where the killer could not have possibly survived and there is absolutely no chance that they did and yet they return showing signs that they were banged up a bit yet are otherwise fine and dandy? Without a supernatural explanation?
Maybe Maniac Cop. Cordell does recover from some nasty things in that movie(his beating) and is fairly hardy, and then he returns as a disfigured freak in the sequel.
Leatherface is impaled and blown up in the second film, but fine in the third.
Then again, continuity isn't a strong point in his series.
The Stepfather has also survived a superhuman amount of damage, obviously dying at the end of the first and second films.
And there's that Children of the Corn sequel that revealed Isaac from the first was just in a Convenient Coma.
Around the time the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake came out was when I pretty much became fed up with all horror movies.
The slasher movie that I cherish the most though is still Scream, if only for being so different from everything else that came before it so much that it set the new rules for the genre to follow until that was all played to death and run into the ground, just like Halloween before it. And, yes, I am looking forward to seeing the sequel this Friday.
Heard of a movie that came out a little bit before Scream called There's Nothing Out There. It was quite similar in themes, and even had a very Randy Meeks-esque character as the hero who tries to save everyone using his knowledge of horror movies to escape/kill the monsters.
Dunno if it's on DVD yet.
I liked Scream 1, it was deliciously meta, sort of a proto-Behind the Mask. If my contemporaries are to be believed, it also works as a straight horror flick, but I geeked up too early to really get that
I like Scream. I enjoy Scream 2. Scream 3 is mediocre, but not offensively awful like some people said. The gorehound in me was crying, however. I suppose the film was toned down due to being post-Columbine.
Idle Hands also was pulled because of the incident, if I read right. That's a fun slasher.
I just got back from it. FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC. Honestly, I think it's the best of the sequels, and just as good as the original.
The only thing I disliked about Scream 3 was the voice changer that could imitate everyone. It was too unrealistic for a series that usually keeps itself as grounded as a slasher movie can. Other than that, I thought it was very good.
Friendships are defined by boundaries; close friendships are defined by undefined boundaries. —Malchus